Linus Torvalds wrote:> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:> >>Yup, BK could definitely handle that...> > > However, it's also true that the thing BK is _worst_ at is cherry-picking > things, and having a collection of stuff where somebody may end up vetoing > one patch and saying "remove that one".

In general, I agree. Andrew and I mentioned this to BitMover recently [though its certainly not a new comment], when they asked us why I had to occasionally blow away the netdev-2.6 tree, and reconstitute it from scratch.

> I love BK, but what BK does well is merging and maintaining trees full of > good stuff. What BK sucks at is experimental stuff where you don't know > whether something should be eventually used or not.

I use BitKeeper to maintain such a tree, "libata-dev". Most stuff in there will go upstream. Some stuff may never go upstream. Some stuff needs to simmer for a while before going upstream. So "change streams" get divided up locally: